Talk:Bell hooks

From Geography

Latest revision as of 14:24, 24 October 2012

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: bell hooks is one of the authors studied in the course. Her biography and a summary of her work is therefore relevant to this course.

2. Well-written: a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The wiki is written in a clear and concise way. The spelling and grammar are correct.

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Even though the wiki is concise, it contains all information about bell hooks' writings which is treated in the course.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 2 (0-10) Comments: The text contains one reference. There is, however, no list of literature and references.

b) it provides in-line citations (including page numbers) from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the APA guidelines. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: The text contains only one reference.

4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The wiki, although concise, does contain all main aspects of bell hooks and her work which was treated in class.

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: The wiki, being concise, does not go into unnecessary detail.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: Even though viewpoints are looked at without bias, the text could use some more weight and size.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: It has been constructed by three people, but seems to be stable and coherent.

7. Well-structured: a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: First, bell hooks herself is described, after which her work is described.

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Headings are ok, but could use some more substance.

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 7(0-10) Comments: Categories are correct, but could have been labelled differently. They could have portrayed the subject better.

8. Illustrated: if possible, by images, maps, schematic overviews: a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; Rating: 0(0-10) Comments: There are no images.

b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 0 (0-10) Comments: There are no images.

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It does stay focussed on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.